BAILII [Home] [Databases] [World Law] [Multidatabase Search] [Help] [Feedback]

Scottish Court of Session Decisions


You are here: BAILII >> Databases >> Scottish Court of Session Decisions >> Myles (Lipman & Co.'s Trustee) [1893] ScotLR 30_729 (14 June 1893)
URL: http://www.bailii.org/scot/cases/ScotCS/1893/30SLR0729.html
Cite as: [1893] SLR 30_729, [1893] ScotLR 30_729

[New search] [Printable PDF version] [Help]


SCOTTISH_SLR_Court_of_Session

Page: 729

Court of Session Inner House First Division.

Wednesday, June 14. 1893.

30 SLR 729

Myles (Lipman & Company's Trustee).

Subject_1Bankruptcy
Subject_2Sequestration
Subject_3Bankruptcy Act 1856 (19 and 20 Vict.c. 79), secs. 5, 125, and 127
Subject_4Computation of Periods of Time under Act — Error in Time of Inserting Notice in Gazette — New Advertisement Authorised.
Facts:

Section 5 of the Bankruptcy Act provides that periods of time in that Act are to be reckoned exclusive of the day from which they are directed to run.

Section 125 provides that immediately on the expiration of four months from the date of the deliverance awarding sequestration, the trustee shall prepare a state of the bankrupt's estate, and that within fourteen days after the expiration of said four months the commissioners shall examine it.

By section 127 the trustee is directed within eight days after the expiration of such fourteen days to give notice in the Gazette published next after the expiration of such fourteen days, of the time and place of paying the dividend.

The four months in a sequestration expired at midnight on 25th May. The Gazette was published on 9th June. The trustee did not insert the notice required by section 127 until the next issue published on 12th June.

On the petition of the trustee, the Court, on the ground that an error appeared to have been committed, authorised insertion of the notice in the Gazette of 16th June.

Opinion by Lord M'Laren that it is not the meaning of the Act that a day should intervene between two consecutive periods, but that the later period begins on completion of the earlier.

Opinions of the Lord President, Lord Adam, and Lord Kinnear reserved.

Headnote:

Section 5 of the Bankruptcy Act provides that “Periods of time in this Act shall be reckoned exclusive of the day from which such period is directed to run.” Section 125 provides—“Immediately on the expiration of four months from the date of the deliverance actually awarding sequestration, the trustee shall proceed to make up a state of the whole estate of the bankrupt, of the funds recovered by him, and of the property outstanding (specifying the cause why it has not been recovered), and also an account of his intromissions, and generally of his management; and within fourteen days after the expiration of the said four months the commissioners shall meet and examine such state and account, … and they shall declare whether any and what part of the nett produce of the estate, after making a reasonable deduction for future contingencies, shall be divided among the creditors.” Section 127 provides—“The trustee shall, within eight

Page: 730

days after the expiration of such fourteen days, give notice in the Gazette published next after expiration of such fourteen days, of the time and place of paying the dividend.” …

In the sequestration of Lipman & Company the four months expired at midnight on 25th May. The Gazette was published on 9th June, the fifteenth day after the expiration of said four months. The trustee did not insert the notice required by the 127th section of the Act until 12th June.

Fearing that he had failed to comply with the statute, the trustee presented a note to the Court craving authority to insert the notice in the Gazette of 16th June.

The petitioner referred to the following authority— Fortunat Edwardo Von Rothberg, December 22, 1876, 4 R. 263.

At advising—

Judgment:

Lord President—Now that we have heard the argument, it appears that an error has been committed in this sequestration. I do not, however, say conclusively that an error has been committed, because we have only heard such argument as the statement of one counsel admits of. That being so, it appears that the sequestration cannot be worked out without our assistance. The petitioner therefore appears to be within the authority of the cases, and I think we should grant him authority to insert the notice in the coming Gazette.

Lord Adam concurred.

Lord M'Laren—I bring to this case the same principles as have been applied in other cases, and I think the meaning of the Act is that consecutive periods of time are to be treated according to the ordinary rules of arithmetic. Now, the period of four months expired on 25th May, and adding 14 to 25, and subtracting from the total the 31 days of May, we come to the 8th of June. I cannot think that the statute means that there should be between two consecutive periods of time a day belonging neither to the one or the other. It appears to me therefore that an error has been committed which we should put right.

Lord Kinnear—I agree that it appears on Mr Salvesen's statement that an error has been committed, and that we should grant the authority craved, but I desire to reserve my opinion as to the computation of the time in the periods allowed by the statute.

The Court authorised the trustee to insert the notice in the Gazette of 16th June.

Counsel:

Counsel for the Petitioner— Salvesen. Agent— J. Smith Clark, S.S.C.

1893


BAILII: Copyright Policy | Disclaimers | Privacy Policy | Feedback | Donate to BAILII
URL: http://www.bailii.org/scot/cases/ScotCS/1893/30SLR0729.html